KISHORKUMAR VENILAL PATEL Vs. DAYASWARUP BHAILALBHAI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this Criminal Revision Application is whether the sample is a "Primary food" or not and whe ther the sample contained pin heads more than the maximum quantity under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which is not injurious to health and would constitute an offence under the provisions of PFA Act.

(2.) To prove the case against the petitioner, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of Food Inspector and Public Analyst. Public Analyst opined that the sample contains foreign articles (Pin heads) which is not injurious to health.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused that the sample is a "primary food" and added pin heads in primary food is not injurious to the health and, therefore, conviction cannot be recorded against the petitioner-accused. In support of his submission, he has relied on the judgment reported in the case of Rakesh Kumar v. State of U. P., 1984(3) Crimes 681. It has been observed in para 4 as under :